Is “old” content bad in and of itself? Or just when it’s presented as current?
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana, Philosopher.
At my wife’s grandmother’s house, there is an arched entryway to the dining room from the living room. Where the arch curves down then heads for the floor, the edge of the wall hasn’t been painted in at least 30 years.
No, Grandma isn’t letting her house to go pot. She doesn’t want to cover up all the pencil marks.
On your birthday, if you were one of her grandkids, she would back you up to the wall, mark your height, then write your name and the date by the pencil mark.
Now, as adults, her grandkids can stand by that wall, and chart their growth over the years. Some years there wasn’t much difference, other years there might be a couple of inches between marks.
I was thinking today about site archives - which we’re seeing more and more of now that blogging packages are being used as inexpensive content management applications. Since blogs are usually date-driven, most packages like pMachine automatically roll old posts off your home page into archives. Some packages roll up by week, some by month.
But for people who have more experience with “static” websites the notion of keeping old content around goes against logic - why would you want to keep “old stuff”?.
I’ve experienced this a bit on a specific project. At one point, an editor printed out some pages from the site to note some content changes, and all the home page archive posts were crossed out - he wanted to delete them from the site. The other day some event-related posts in the students section were closed out because the events had passed. Then, in discussing some home page changes, I was asked about the archive links, and whether they needed to be there.
I think these events may point out one of the most significant differences that the blogging format makes clear - that old content, in and of itself, isn’t bad. More than that - it’s good.
Sounds simple, but that’s huge in the web world. How many times have you heard the talk…“the site’s out of date”....“hasn’t been updated”....“really should get that old stuff off there”...site managers are conditioned to jump at such talk - rounding up new content, replacing the old stuff, and breathing a sigh of relief when the site is “current” again.
But old content is only “bad” when it’s presented as current. Blogs emphasize the date of content, and give the visitor the ability to decide how current it may or may not be. An archived post from a year ago may be just the thing they were looking for.
For this client, I suggested that rather than closing out the site post advertising a skiing trip, that they post some reaction or commentary from someone who attended. Or post a wrap-up, with attendance numbers and injury reports. In other words, don’t pull the old stuff off, push it down with new. I gave the analogy of a funnel - keep throwing some new posts in. They’ll stay in the funnel (on the home page) for a while, then drain out the bottom into the archives.
And over time, just like Grandma’s wall, the web site archives will be a way to follow the church’s progress and growth through the years - “Hey look, remember those tent services we did”....“9 years ago, here’s some stuff from the big campaign we did to raise funds for the new building”...“8 years ago…oh wow….remember that time 30 people were baptized on one weekend?”...“hmmm…yea 5 years ago is when John came on board”.
Imagine what a resource this kind of digital archive will be - both for members and newcomers.
I know they’ll thank me then…;)
Comments are closed, but you can read the 1 comment from someone else.
Paul Oyler on January 30, 2007